Backgrounds 2 Osborn
  	Art III §1--inferior cts
  	Art III§2--jud pwr 2 extend 2 law & equity arise under Const. 
laws, & treaties
  	Specif. Jxnal Statutes--open up Dist. Cts
  	28 USC §1331--Gen Fed Quest Jxn; same lang. of Const
  	28 USC §1441--Removal Statute
Osborn v. Bank of the US
  	Statute--gave C/A
  	Const Issue--arise under meaning of Art III
  	Orig. Ingredient 2 form a creature of fed. govt
  	2 arise under Art III, there must B fed. ingredient
Louisville & Nashville Co. v. Mottley
  	28 USC §1331--1875 gen fed.
  	If P's claim arises from state law, matter can't B heard in fed. ct
  	Well Pleaded--P's complaint must show that essential element of 
	claim & suit arises under fed. law not from Ds defense
		1. Not really about Art III
		2. K case injecting fed. issues
  	Sep. Statute--rev states decs on fed. quests
  	Restrictive Reading of §1331
Skelly & Franchise Tax Case
  	Declaratory Judgment Act of 1935--no good against well pleaded cases

Bases 4 fed. jxns
  	Cong. specif'ly open up in a statute
  	Well pleaded complaint
  	Art. III giving rise 2 subst. of fed. quest.
Merrel Dow Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Thompson
  	Facts
		1. State claims w/1 violation of fed. state axnable by 
		state (FDCA)
		2. Ct. of Appeals said that if only 1 fed claim against 5 
		state, then no fed. quest.
		3. Sup. ct. said if truly 1 fed. claim, then can use 
§1367 4 suppl jxn.
 		If there's no express/implied C/A in fed. statute, then	 
		Cong. didn't intend 2 open up so no remedy
  	4 removal, see if there was orig. jxn
  	If stand. incorp'ed in state based C/A, Cong. didn't intend 2 
	create priv. C/A so can't open up fed. ct.
  	Novelty of issue is insuff. 2 confer fed. jxn
Cort v. Ash
  	4 part test 4 priv. C/A implied
		1. P in class of statute
		2. Leg. intent
		3. Purposes consistent
		4. Trad. in state law
  	Not a good law except 4 Const. & old Cong. statute
Bivens v. 6 Unknown Named Agents of the Fed. Bureau of Narcotics
  	Implied C/A in Const. Amend.
Smith Case Rule
  	Holmes Dissent--case arises under the law that creates it
  	Can arise under more than 1 sov.'s
  	Shoshone case was an exception by statutory construction
  	If state incorporates fed. provision, then theres fed. jxn
  	Moore Case distinguishable b/c didn't allege fed. statute
  	Merrel Dow Case distinguishable b/c Cong. didnt intent 2 create remedy
Suppl Jxn
UMW of Amer. v. Gibbs
  	Common nucleus of facts test
  	2 step analysis
		1. Jud. pwr 2 hear by Art. III
		2. Discretion
  	Factors of discretion
		3. Needless dec. of state law avoided/novel state quests
		4. If fed. claim dismissed, should dismiss state claims
		5. If state issues predominates, may dismiss
		6. If indep of jxnal issues, jury R confused
  	Not deal w/C/A v. grounds as set by Hurns v. Oursler
Pendant parties
Aldinger v. Howard
  	Fact
		1. P sued county under state & police under fed
  	Distinguished pendant parties v. claims
  	3 step analysis
		2. Art III of pwr.
		3. Fed. statutes
		4. Discretion
Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger
  	Still a good law
  	No suppl. jxn 4 impleading which results in incompl. diversity
Finley v. US
  	Changed the test of fed. statute negating 2 actively affirming 
	the jxn
§1367
  	Overruled Finley v. US
  	Sub a)--Unless express exception, axn w/in such orig. jxn that 
	form same case; joinders & interventions R also o.k.
  	Sub b)--In diversity, can't have suppl jxn over claims against 
	parties under 
	Rule 14, 19, 20, 24; Ps of Rule 19; & intervene as Ps under Rule 
	24 if incompl. diversity created (all joinders after orig. parties)
  	Sub c)--Discretion factors:  novel claims, state claims 
	dominates, fed claim 
	dismissed, & exceptional circs
  	Sub d)--State statute tolled 4 30 days
§1441
  	Removal statute
  	Sub a)--if orig. was able 2 bring, remove 2 where axn pending
  	Sub b)--dont care about ress/cits except in diversity in which 
	case can only 
	remove if none of the parties in D is a citizen of the state its brought
  	Sub c)--sep. & indep. claim w/in §1331 joined by non-removable 
`	claims, then 
	entire case may B removed
  	Sub d)--if any civil axn brought against for. state, removed 
	where axn pending
  	Removal only by D
Zahn v. Int. Paper Co.
  	Facts
		1. Same waterfront residents bring suit 4 water pollution
		2. No diversity case
  	By §1367)a, can satisfy joinder req.
Subj. matter defects
  	Rule 12)h)3--can throw out whenever lack subj. matter jxn (Mottley)
  	B/c of Const. /Statute dimension unlike pers & venue jxns
DiFrischia v. NY Central R. Co.
  	Only suppl jxn addresses staute of lim. in states
  	Diversity cases must rely on states 2 toll
US v. United Mine Workers
  	Even when ct. lacks subj. matter jxn, follow judges orders
Willy v. Coastal Corp.
  	Ct. can do a lot of stuff even if lack subj. matter
Collateral Attack
  	Pers. Jxn
		1. No limited/spec. appearance--waive
		2. Default--attack later collaterally
		3. Defend jxn pt.--cant walk away
  	Res judicata v. policy that cts can't go beyond their boundaries
 	 Rest 1
		4. Collateral attack w/balancing factors
		5. Clear lack subj. matter
		6. Quest. of law & det. of jxn
		7. Limited ct.
		8. Jxn quest. not litigated
		9. Policy strong against cts acting beyond
  	Rest 2
		10. Default--can collaterally attack subj. & pers. jxn
		11. Contested then can attack if no justifiable int.s of 
		reliance +
		12. Subj. matter plainly beyond or
		13. Infringe on auth. of another tribunal/agency of govt 
		(Kalb) or
		14. No pwr 2 subpeona witnesses 4 fair proced.
Durfee v. Duke
  	Can't collaterally attack on factual basis
Kalb v. Feuerstein
  	In bankruptcy area, Cong. wanted state cts 2 stay out 
  	Lack of subj. matter jxn so subj. 2 collateral attack
§1391
  	Venue may B waived if not set up like pers. jxn by Rule 12)b)3
  	Sub a)1--in diversity, venue where D resides; if all D's in same 
	state, can choose
  	Sub a)2--venue where sub. events/ommissions giving rise 2 the claim
  	Sub a)3--venue where Ds R subj. 2 pers. jxn only if no other 
	dist. exists
  	Venue can no longer B brought where P resides
  	Sub d)--an alien may B SUED in any dist.
Transfer of Venue
  	§1404a)
		1. Transfer of venue where it could've been orig'ly brought 
		(Hoffman Case)
		2. Justice & Conv.
		3. If P & D consent, then doesnt matter
		4. Use this statute if there was orig. jxn over venue & 
		pers. jxn
		5. Transferors law holds in transferees forum
		6. Transfer is discretionary
  	§1406 a)
		7. If improper venue, then has the option of transferring 
		cases where it could've been brought 
		8. Apply the law of transferees instead of transferors

  	§1631
		1. Can transfer 2 cure pers. jxn defect
		2. Apply the law of transferees instead of transferors
  	Factors 4 transfer
		3. Witnesses
		4. Ease of Proof
		5. P's choice
  	Little occasion 4 forum non conveniens since can transfer
Forum Non Conveniens
Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
  	Facts
		1. Accident, witnesses, plane, pilot in Scot / Eng.
		2. Reyno is CA res. who brought suit 4 prod. liability
  	Removed by §1441)a in CA dist ct.; diversity & axn pending, then 
	go 2 embracing
  	Does §1332)c)2--does it apply 4 legal rep. of the estate of 
	decedent deemes 2 B a cit. of the same state? no b/c Scot not a state
  	Found pers jxn over Piper by §1391 a)3; transferred 2 PA
  	Ct. of Appeals
		3. Replaced their judgment b/c of abuse of discretion
		4. If det. that outcome is less favorable, can't dismiss
  		Sup. Ct.
		5. Only 1 of the factors, not det. factor, is that if 
		outcome is less favorable
		6. Burdensome is the def. of forum non conv.
  	Stay v. dismissal v. injunction
		7. Stay the axn so if Eng. won't take, can retake the case
		8. If dismiss, no res judicata so can go elsewhere but 
		can't take back
		9. If injunction, prob. of national, fed, & counterinjunctions
  		Not carry Const. weight of min. contact (14th Amend.) so 
		not binding on state cts
  	Don't want people elsewhere 2 litigate in Amer.
  	Choice of law is through conflict of law provisions
  	Can exercise rt. 2 remove w/o waiving pers. jxn
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
  	Cited factors 4 forum non conv.
		1. Private int. of the litigant--ease of access 2 proof, 
		cost of witnesses, view of premises, other practical probs
		2. Enforceability of a judgment
		3. P's choice of forum shouldn't B disturbed unless by 
		choice vex, harass, / oppress D
		4. Pub. int.--adm. difficulty (congestion), jury duty
  	Not good 4 inter dist. 
Choice of Law
  	Conflict of law rules usually through C/L
  	There's some restraint on states through 14th Amend. 2 use the law 
	that had some contact
  	Dif. facets of trxns can B gov'ed by dif. laws which R goved by 
	conflict of law rules
Swift v. Tyson
  	Gen Fed C/L should govern where not bound by any state dec. if 
	there's no state statute
  	Interprete §1652 that laws of the sev. states don't incl. 
	unwritten law
  	Forum shopping encouraged
  	This era looked 2 states 4 proced. rules
Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins (1938)
  	Overrule Swift b/c
		1. Cong. couldn't leg. in this area by Art I so illogical 
		that ct. could
		2. Diversity can B created 2 get around the state law
		3. Polit., Soc., & benefits didn't come
  	Probs of Swift
		4. State cts didn't follow fed. cts dec's b/c not binding 
		so no uniformity
		5. No equal protection of the law b/c of diversity 
		6. State pwrs R eroded
		7. Invites state leg. 2 D the law so fed. would follow 
		the state law
		8. Classification prob. of local laws v. gen. laws
		9. Took over huge area of law by Gen Fed C/L
  	Promotes uniformity w/in the state not btwn Fed. Cts
  	Subst law incl's conflict of law rules
  	Dist ct. must apply the local subst law where it sits
		10. Doesn't address the proced. laws
  	Twin Aims 2 B used when no Fed. proced. rule on pt.
		11. Discourage forum shopping
		12. Avoid inequitable adm. of law
  	Same yr., Fed Rules of Civ Pro was promulgated so that instead of 
	applying state proced rule w/fed subst law, now apply fed proced rule 
	w/state subst law
Guaranty Trust Co. v. York (1945)
  	Apply subst state law & proced. fed. law
  	Since Erie was about whether the fed ct can entertain axn when 
	state ct. can't, subst means outcome determinative
Erie York Doctrine
  	Uniformity w/in state is an imp. princ.
  	Proced. is det'ed by outcome
  	No Gen Fed C/L & not allow manufacture of diversity
Byrd v. Blue Ridge Rural electric Coop. Inc.
  	Balancing Test
		1. If proced. rule & mode of trial is bound up 2 state 
		created rts, must apply state law (must B specif. rts)
		2. By policy of uniform enforcement, where state rts Rnt 
		bound up, if state rule disrupts fed. sys. even when outcome det., 
		then not follow the state rule
		3. Apply if there's no Rule/statue of fed. (in combination 
		w/Erie twin aim test)
Hanna v. Plumer (1965)
  	Test
		1. As long as Rules cover the sit. textually, then trumps 
		any contrary state rules, laws
		2. Fed. Ct. must apply Fed. Rules unless Adv. Committee, 
		Sup. Ct, & Cong. erred prima facie by Enabling Act/const. Restriction
		3. If Const Rule, must apply 
Stewart Case Org. Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
  	Embellished Hanna:  extended 2 fed. statute
  	Enabling Act is where Statute/Rule is promulgated by Sup Ct. 
	persuant 2 Cong. not vetoing in 6 months
  	Look 2 Eries twin aims if no statute/Rule
Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co.
  	Apply states conflict of law provision when fed. ct. applies the 
	law of state
  	Want uniformity w/in state
Mason v. American Emery Wheel Works
  	If Fed dont know, can abstain / certify a quest. 2 the highest ct. 
	of the state
  	Unusual that the Circ. Ct. would overrule the state law
  	If Circ. Ct. was wrong, still res judicata which is the dang. of 
	fed. ct. opining on state law
  	De Novo Rev.--no deference 2 what the dist. ct. says; encourages appeal



Spec'ed Fed C/L in State Ct.
  	Todays speced Fed. C/L is binding on state cts
  	Uniformity among speced fed. C/L
  	Req. speced fed C/L when fed. int. is imp.
Clearfield Trust Co. v. US
  	Erie Rule not applicable b/c its not a diversity case where fed. 
	ct. sits like state ct.
  	Cong. can change fed. dec's but if Erie Rule gov'ed, Cong. couldn't 
	change state laws
  	Cong. is silent on how fed. cts should fashion law so fed cts 
	have choices
  	Fed. subst. law apply here b/c want 2 see nationwide uniformity
  	Sources that det. fed. law is case law so look @ cases from Swift 
	4 spec'ed fed C/L
  	Automatic push toward uniformity
  	Facts
		1. JC Penny guaranteed check 2 Clearfield & Clearfield 
g		guaranteed 2 US
		2. Clearfield wanted PA law 2 apply
US v. Kimbell Foods Inc.
  	Deemphasis of uniformity
  	Erie still does not control but fed. int. doesn't nec.'ly mean fed. 
	subst rule gov's the case
  	Weigh & balance policies:  Need 4 uniformity v. Fed. Rules dont 
	disrupt commercial rel.'s of state law
  	This is maj. now, not Clearfield
Miree v. DeKalb County
  	No automatic Fed subst. law
  	Must look @ part. issue 2 dec. application of fed. v. state law
  	State law govs here b/c really about breaching K
  	Fed. reg. rules about trash cans doesn't translate 2 US as 
	beneficiary 
  	Fed law govs the meaning of K but not the case
Bank of Amer. Nat. Trust & Savings Assn v. Parnell
  	Priv. indiv's suing so not a Clearfield case
  	Bonds R imp. 4 treasury but should look @ the issues not the outcomes
  	There's no need 2 resolve the entire case by 1 law
Fed Law in Suppl. Jxn
  	If implead by §1367, entire trxn should B gov'ed by fed. law 
	(Clearfield Ex.)
  	If dec'ed 2 bring sep. axn as in Clearfield v. JC Penny, then by 
	Supremacy Clause, state cts must still follow Fed. C/L
Fed Law in §1331
  	4 purposes of fed. law arising under the Fed. Const. & Law, fed. 
	C/L is incl'ed in the Fed. Law
  	Cases under Fed. C/L can B brought under §1331 w/o diversity / 
suppl. jxn
Fed Law in State Cts
  	State cts must take fed quests & apply fed. law
  	If any mistakes, US Sup. Ct. can review @ appropriate Xs
  	Dif. from when fed. cts make mistakes of state law--res judicata
Testa v. Katt
  	Still good law
  	Application of Penal law
  	US isn't sep. state but co-exists w/other states
  	Sup. Clause does not allow state ct. 2 not enforce fed. law
  	Must enforce fed. axn except in valid excuse
		1. Forum non conveniens--must B nondiscriminatory forum 
		non conveniens
		2. If state ct. doesn't have jxn conformable 2 subst. of 
		the case
Dice v. Akron, Canton & Youngstown R. Co. 
  	Fed. C/A so cant bring in subst. state law defenses 
  	If letting state law control alter fed. law / uniformity, then 
	apply fed.
  	Jury trial was found 2 B fundamental 2 FELA act; bound up rt. of 
	the act
  	Hence, no mere local rule of proced. should B used
  	Cong. can force proced. in state ct. by Nec. & proper clause; 
	should write statutes superseding state proced. in clear & 
	unmistakeable lang. in concurrent jxns
  	Exception --usually state proced. govs the case
Brown v. Western Ry. of Ala.
  	Fed. rt. cant B denied by local practice
  	Seventh Amend. is NOT binding on states

Modern Pleading
Gillispie v. Goodyr. Service Stores NC
  	State Case
  	Dif. view of purpose of pleading from fed. notice pleading
Rule 8
  	Sub a)1--Short & plain statement of the grounds
  	Sub a)3--Demand 4 judgment 4 the relief
  	Sub a)2--Short & plain statement of the claim; dif. from 
	statement of facts
  	Rule meant 2 overturn Code States pleading facts
  	Allegations would suffice under Fed. Rule
Rule 9
  	Rule 8)a guides unless this Rule which trumps general pleading
  	Exception 2 Federal Rules of Civ Pro's tendency 4 notice pleading
Form 9
  	X & place is imp. 4 pleading
  	As long as pass Form 9, o.k.
Diogouardi v. Durning
  	Only need suff. of statement of claim not facts
  	Only dismiss if fail 2 state a claim upon which relief can B granted
  	Fact--P filed complaint w/o an atty 4 injury of not auctioning @ 
	the rt. price
Lodge Int. Ass'n of Machinists v. united Aircraft Corp
 	Motion 4 more def. statement by Rule 12)e
 	Still need 2 claim that Ps pleading so vague that D cant frame a response
  	Not asking 4 dismissal
  	Rule 12)e is read restrictvely 2 not undermine Rule 8)a)2
  	Although granted motion, P didn't need 2 ans. any part of the 
	motion until its own discovery phase
  	Not a good auth. on Rule 12)e
	Probs of Descriptive Pleading
  	If dif. later, unfair notice 2 D
  	More particular the pleading, more problematic
Conley v. Gibson
  	Notice Pleading
Leatherman Case
  	Code states wanted 2 plead ultimate fact but not evid. facts
  	Cts differ on these interps
  	Feds moved away from this
McCaughey v. Schuette
  	Ds demur denied & P won
  	State sup. ct. said should've affirmed dismissal b/c pleaded evid. facts
  	Remanded 4 new trial
Rules 4 Notice Pleading
  	Main Rule is 8)a)2
  	Rule 12)b)6--move 4 dismissal b/c of failure 2 state claim; subj. 
	2 Rule 56; like a demur; it's a summary judgment
  	Rule 12)e--used very rarely; req. more definite statement; If 
	look @ Rule 8)b, party w/o knowledge / info suff, can state that & that 
	would B denial
  	Rule 12)f--pwr of ct. 2 dismiss & strike certain allegation as 
	redundant, scandalous, irrelev.
  	Rule 10)b--put sep. counts in; D ans's each sep'ly
Rule 9
  	Sub b--malice, intent, S/M of fraud/mistake then plead part.'ly; 
	exception 2 Rule 8
  	Sub f--X & place suff. of pleading; venue & stat. of lim. concerns
  	Sub g--spec. damage rule so plead w/specificity
Rule 8)e)2
  	Can make 2 / more statements of alt. / hypothetically
  	Subj. 2 Rule 11
Rule 11
  	Sub a--All papers must have attys sig. except discovery; 
	continuous duty 
	that papers R correct; every X U rely afterwards, must B correct
  	Sub b--any papers 2 the ct, U R reping 2 the best of Ur 
	knowledge; rsbl inquiry under circs; obj. stand
  	Sub b)1--Not improper
  	Sub b)2--Law allow/extension allow
  	Sub b)3--Alleg. & other factual contentions should have facts 
	supported / ID those that R likely 2 have support after rsbl opp. 4 
	further investigation
  	Sub b)4--Denials of factual contentions R warranted on evid. / ID 
	rsbly based on lack of info / belief
  	Sub c)--Sanctions may B imposed 2 law firm not just atty
  	Sub c)1)a--By motion; 21 days 2 correct & end matter
  	Sub c)1)b--Ct. takes own initiative so more serious & no 21 days rule
  	Sub c)2--Punish by nonmonetary nat., penalty 2 ct. / dir'ing 
	payment 2 movant of rsbly attys fees / other expenses
  	Sub c)2)a--No $ sanction against reped party
  	Sub c)2)b--If ct. starts initiative, then can't have $ sanction if 
	the parties settles / disposed the case
  	Sub c)3--Ct. describes conduct violation & explain so will B 
	honest & Appeal Cts can look 
Ziervogetl v. Royal Packing Co.
  	Rule 9)g violated b/c didn't specif'ly state spec. damages
  	Spec. damages when ord'ly doesn't occur
  	Unfair if not give notice; no surprises
  	Missouri Ct. of Appeals Case
Rule 15
  	Sub b--issues not raised by pleadings can B tried by 
	express/implied consent
  	If D doesn't obj. then implied consent during trial 
  	If D obj's then Rule 15 allows pleading 2 amend unless obj'ing 
	party can show that would prejudice the party; obj'ing party has burden 
	2 prove
  	Wide latitude 2 discourage reliance on pleading
Bail v. Cunningham Bros Inc.
  	Rule 54)c--P is bound by lim. of ad damnum clause only when D defaults
  	Again, deaccentuates role of pleading
  	Can show prejudice, otherwise no limit 2 damages
Haney v. Burgin
  	Raised the amt. each X
  	Rule 54)c should B the goal
Rule 6)b
  	Ct. can enlarge
  	Discretion
Rule 12)a & Extension
  	X per.
  	When ask 4 extension, ask 4 what U want; extension in 1 count 	
	doesn't mean extension 4 other counts
Zelinski v. Phil. Piers, Inc.
  	Rule 15)c--Can add Carload as D notwithstanding stat. of lim.; 
	can amend pleadings; stat. of lim. tolled if satisfy sub 1, 2, / 3
  	Sub 1--Rel. back 2 orig. pleading permitted by law prov. of stat. 
	of lim.
  	Sub 2--Claim same from con., trxn, / occurrence
  	Sub 3--If change the party in the same case w/in per. of Rule 4)m 
	of 120 days + cts add'al amt, o.k.
  	Sub 3)a--D received notice so won't B prejudiced in maintaining defense
  	Sub 3)b--D knew/should've known that axn would've been brought if 
n	not 4 mistake
  	Even in aff. defense, admission takes precedence over gen. denial
  	Facts
		1. Z hit by a fork truck; thought had rt. D PPI but 
		actually Carload operated it
		2. PPI & C. had same insurance co.
Rule 8)c
  	Aff. defense must B pleaded by D / waived
  	Burden of pleading & proving on D
  	If not plead aff. defense, which U have, probably can't present 
	evid. in trial
  	If take on aff. defense & didn't need 2, then burden of sustaining
Ingraham v. US
  	US party like priv. indiv. so can have defense by the statute 
	limiting tort damages
  	US didn't raise aff'ly
  	Ct. said 2 late 2 raise 
Taylor Case
  	Allowed govt 2 come back @ late state
  	Better rule than Ingraham b/c taxpayers $ was spent
Reply
  	Unimp. in Fed; deaccentuate pleading
  	If counterclaim specif'ly laid out & denominated, then P has 
	obligation 2 reply
Moore v. Moore
  	Rule 15--implied consent 2 try issues not raised in pleadings; 
	custody case